What can we conclude from the above three statements above? To borrow from C.S. Lewis:

A) Jesus is a fake, lying and pretending to be God.

B) Jesus really thinks He is God but isn’t, so He is crazy.

C) Jesus really is God.

Christians believe conclusion C.

Some people believe that Jesus is a good man or a prophet, but not God. But if so, how can they reconcile point of logic 3? If Jesus was not God, then what was this ‘good man, prophet, but not God’ doing going around actively encouraging people to think He was?

Surely a good man or a prophet would not intentionally mislead people – even into eternal damnation! Surely you do not get moral guidance from and look up to a nutter who thinks he is Napoleon.

Only conclusion C can be reconciled with any idea of Jesus as a good, sane person.

——————

Now let’s take it further than the blog post title.

Among those who believe in Jesus, there are generally three types:

I) Believe that Jesus = God as one person with no distinction at all (Oneness doctrine)

III) Believe that Jesus = God as one being, but also as different persons with distinctions (part of the Trinity)

Why do I agree with type III? Consider the dilemmas posed by these Bible passages respective to the types of belief:

I) “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32) and “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you” (John 17:1). If Jesus is the exact same person as the Father with no distinction, then why do they know different things, and why does Jesus speak to the Father as if speaking to a separate person? (Compare with the strangeness of: I said to me, “Oh me, please give respect to me so that I can give respect to me.”)

II) See the first three passages cited above along with the three points of logic. If Jesus is not in any way God, then why does He let people worship Him as God?

III) Both the dilemmas above are resolved.

And that is why Christians like me believe that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense.

KUALA LUMPUR: Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has warned political parties to not simply accuse Umno of being racist.

Najib said parties which accused Umno of being racist should look at themselves and the reality of the racial composition in their own parties and check if it truly reflected the openess they have been espousing.

“If the Malays are truly racist as alleged, we would not have accepted the cultures of other ethnic groups which are being practised here.

“We would also not have allowed vernacular schools to be established and it would have been impossible to cooperate closely with other component parties within the Barisan Nasional over the decades,” he said in his maiden presidential address at the party’s 60th annual general assembly here on Thursday.

Najib warned those making such accusations not be so arrogant as to claim that they were multiracial parties which practised moral purity and intellectual sincerity.

Reflecting on the May 13, 1969 tragedy, Najib said Umno leaders would have chosen not to continue with democracy which had been suspended and would have instead set up a single-party government or supported a military coup d’etat.

“However, that never took place,” he said.

He said the fact that Umno had worked hard to restore democracy within 18 months from that incident clearly showed that it was not power crazy and was far from being a racist party.

Najib said the true meaning of racism would be like apartheid practised by South Africa in the past.

Even in the United States, he said blatant racism was the norm until the mid-1960s where schools, washrooms and even sitting arrangements in restaurants and buses were segregated.

“In Malaysia, the situation is different as the Malays are inclusive in nature. It is obvious that if the Malays were racist, they would not have allowed Malacca to be a prosperous entreport in the 15th century,” he added.

On 14 October 2009, the Associated Press reported that Iraq’s government had finally released their figures for the death toll. A report by the Human Rights Ministry said that from the beginning of 2004 to 31 October 2008, a period of 58 months, 85,694 Iraqis were killed – a rate of 1,477.5 deaths per month. No Americans, insurgents or foreigners are included in the figure.

(This is significantly lower than my earlier calculation of 98,882 Iraqi deaths over 57 months using the Iraq Body Count project estimate – a rate of 1,734.8 deaths per month.)

And thanks to the US Troop Surge and the Anbar Awakening where the Iraqis turned against Al Qaeda, the situation in Iraq is far more stable today.

The Iraqi defence, interior and health ministries estimate that from 1 November 2008 to 31 August 2009, there were just 3,045 Iraqi casualties – a rate of just 304.5 deaths per month. (For comparison, the murder rate in peacetime South Africa currently stands at 1,512.3 deaths per month, higher than even wartime Iraq.)

Taken together, this means that 88,739 Iraqis were killed over the past 68 months – a rate of 1,305 deaths per month. Bear in mind that these deaths were overwhelmingly caused by terrorist attacks while the ‘evil US occupation soldiers’ were giving their own lives to protect Iraqi civilians.

Compare this to Saddam Hussein’s reign. From July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003 and focusing on just six war crime events listed by US War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, there were an estimated 865,000 Iraqi deaths over 285 months – a rate of 3,035.1 deaths per month.

And compare to the Bill Clinton-era embargo that followed: From Aug 6, 1990 to Aug 6, 1999 the United Nations estimated one million Iraqi civilians died over 108 months as a result of the sanctions – a rate of 9,259.3 deaths per month.

Thus, Saddam Hussein’s death rate was 2.33 times greater than Bush’s. Clinton’s death rate was 7.1 times greater than Bush’s.

So if Bush’s invasion had not ended both Saddam’s rule and the embargo, we can estimate that from the period of 1 January 2004 to 31 August 2009, a total of 206,387 + 629,632 = 836,019 Iraqis would have died.

Taken against the actual figure of just 88,739 deaths during that period, we can determine that 747,280 fewer Iraqi lives have been lost due to ‘Bush’s war of aggression’.

So did Bush invade Iraq based on faulty reasoning about weapons of mass destruction? Indubitably. Did he act unilaterally without the approval of the United Nations? Indisputably. Did his actions directly lead to a massive campaign by terrorists to make the lives of Iraqis living hell? Unfortunately.

But did Bush’s decision to invade Iraq turn out for the good in the end?

For the answer to that, perhaps we should ask one of the three quarters of a million Iraqis who are alive today due to his ‘warmongering’.

JOHOR BARU: Six members of an armed theft gang, believed to be behind 41 cases in the city, have been caught.

The gang members, aged between 18 and 37, were usually armed with parang.

Police first arrested two men in Stulang Laut at 3.30am on Sept 26. One of them hid a parang under his jacket.

The motorcycle seized from them carried fake registration plates and were stolen in Johor Jaya.

Further investigations led to the arrest of the other four in Kangkar Pulai.

Also confiscated were four parang, a baton, a knife, a Honda EX5 motorcycle, two ladies’ handbags and one plastic bag containing identification documents of the victims.

Johor police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Shariff said the group had been involved in 41 snatch thefts and robbery cases around the city in the past eight months.

In another case, police arrested two siblings and seized a gun and 10 bullets from them.

The siblings, aged 27 and 40, were arrested at 2.10pm on Sept 30. One of them had seven previous criminal records. DCP Mohd Mokhtar said police also arrested two other men, aged 29 and 30, for possession of five toy guns.

“The suspects were arrested in Skudai on Sept 30,” he said, adding that one of the suspects had a conviction for murder.

three of them would be considered hard-left liberals in American politics. One of those belongs to Norway’s Socialist Left party. And all five people on the committee are politicians selected by the Norwegian parliament, and generally hew to a Norwegian view of foreign affairs — internationalist in outlook and with a broad affinity for Obama’s posture on the world stage.

HOW very refreshing to read the call by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for Malay students to enrol in institutions of higher learning with equal racial breakdown if they want to gain a competitive edge.

How right he is that if Malay students wish to attain superlative academic achievements, they must compete with others.

I wish Dr Mahathir had preached and practised this principle when he was Education Minister and then Prime Minister for 22 years.

I remember how I was chided for being “politically incorrect” and “acting against national interest” when I had used the same argument in advocating that a mere 10% of non-Malay students be admitted into my university’s Matriculation programme in the late 70s.

It was full of cool footage of tanks, artillery and even Siberian soldiers firing their submachine guns while skiing down a slope at high speed! But one image struck me in particular.

A little girl lay dead, her body sprawled halfway on the street and halfway on the kerb, face solid frozen over with ice.

Imagine if that were your own little child.

This was during the horrific Siege of Leningrad, where the Nazis simply bombarded the city with artillery fire and waited for the populace and defenders to starve and freeze to death… For 872 days. (Note however that Stalin too was a similarly genocidal starvation-monger.)

Now if a nation were known to be strong, powerful and very dangerous in wartime, would that not be a major deterrent to potential aggressors? Japan had to think thrice before deciding to attack America in World War II.

This is why Ronald Reagan believed in ““Peace Through Strength”, and said “History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”

This is why American Conservatives support the Second Amendment and gun rights. Not just for protection against crime and maniacal murderers, but also for protection from those who would seek to rule over them by force – including, perhaps, even their own government. (As the Kraków Jews learnt too late.)

In my earlier, more naive times, I thought it stupid for nations to spend so much on their military. Why raise armies for war? Wouldn’t the vast amounts of money be better spent on education, infrastructure and so on.

How foolish I was.

Liberals are still that naive. They scream and spit and slur at military men and women, even though those are the same “rough men stand (who) ready to do violence on their behalf”.

And if they have their way, one day they too may come face to face with their own Siege of Leningrad.

So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.

…

This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children.

The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal – hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power.

…

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote:

“The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.”

That statesman’s words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows, and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world, including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. That is why I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision.

…

Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed it to prosper. Our Asian allies get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace. And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment to our longstanding allies and partners.

Asia has been one of the world’s great success stories. It is a region where America needs to assist with right mix of hard and soft power. While I have so much hope for a bright future in Asia, in a region this dynamic, we must always be prepared for other contingencies. We must work at this – work with our allies to ensure the region’s continued peace and prosperity.

Be sure to read the rest of the entire piece, which has a heavy focus on China.

Indeed, what Sarah Palin says – that terrorism and the War on Terrorism are ‘a war within Islam’ – is true. The main victims of Islamofascism are Muslims.

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels in the immediate future. Thus the security and stability of the Gulf and its oil supplies are vital for the United States.

America has been fighting an insurgency in Iraq for five years. Taking out Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Mistakes were subsequently made, though, and the price has been high.

Iraq is a key issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. Whether to maintain the U.S. presence in Iraq is for Americans to decide. But the general assumption has been that the only question to be resolved is the timing and manner of the withdrawal of American forces.

The costs of leaving Iraq unstable would be high. Jihadists everywhere would be emboldened. I have met many Gulf leaders and know that their deep fear is that a precipitate U.S. withdrawal would gravely jeopardize their security.

A hurried withdrawal from Iraq would cause the leaders of many countries to conclude that the American people cannot tolerate the nearly 4,000 casualties they have suffered in Iraq and that in a protracted asymmetrical war the U.S. government will not have its people’s support to bear the pain that is necessary to prevail. And this even after the surge of 30,000 additional troops under Gen. David Petraeus has resulted in an improved security situation.

Whatever candidates might say in the course of this presidential campaign, I cannot believe that any American president could afford to walk away from Iraq so lightly, damage American prestige and influence, and so undermine the credibility of American security guarantees.

…

A few years ago, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were a check on Iran. The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.

Singapore supported the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to do so. My country has deployed amphibious support ships in the Gulf as well as transport aircraft and refueling tankers to assist U.S. forces. We are also helping with reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. We have placed these symbolic chips on the table because we realize that the global stakes are extremely high.

The United States clearly cannot stay in Iraq alone. America needs a coalition. This will require a more multilateral approach, which in turn requires clarity and a close examination of the strategic stakes. The domestic American debate on Iraq affects world public opinion and thus the political viability and sustainability of any multinational coalition.

The writer, Singapore’s minister mentor, was prime minister from 1959 to 1990.

Thus, a defeat or surrender in Afghanistan today would have dire effects in Southeast Asia by emboldening Islamic extremists, just as half a century ago America not intervening in Vietnam would have meant emboldened local communists. See What Did the Vietnam War Ever Accomplish?, which I actually wrote based on Lee Kuan Yew’s views, for more on the latter.

NEW YORK: Inspired by US President Barack Obama’s Change theme, nearly 180,000 young people across South-East Asia have registered support for change in the run-up to the Youth Engagement Summit (YES) 2009.

The summit is the first of its kind in Asia and will bring together youth representatives from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Brunei.

Organisers briefed US State Department officials in Washington DC last week on details of the plans, which include inviting 10 of America’s most promising youth leaders to attend the event.

Expected to be the largest youth gathering in the region, the summit with the theme “South-East Asia Youth for CHANGE”, will connect young people via satellite link-up to giant screens across five South-East Asian leading universities with 6,000 summit participants in Kuala Lumpur.

…

“Youth of South-East Asia are more connected, ready for change and forward looking than before. These youth will lead their countries in the next five years. We have to engage them now,” he said.

…

Organising chairman Harmandar Singh said YES 2009 would begin immediately after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) conference in Singapore and he hoped to attract at least one more world-renowned agent of change as a keynote speaker.

“This movement was inspired by President Obama’s call for change during last year’s election campaign. His charismatic approach has influenced a dynamic shift in long-held perceptions, particularly for South-East Asia’s next generation of leaders.”

For nearly two years, economic issues have held the top spot in terms of importance among voters.

But the latest national telephone survey shows that 83% now view government ethics and corruption as very important, placing it just ahead of the economy on a list of 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. Eighty-two percent (82%) of voters see the economy as very important.

The new findings come at a time when 43% of voters say the president is doing a poor job addressing government ethics and reducing corruption, up five points from early September and the highest level measured since he took office.

On a related note: Culture of Corruption remains on the New York Times best-seller list for the 9th week in a row (#9) and in the Amazon.com Top 100 for 68 days straight (currently #11). Thank you for continuing to spread the word.

Summary of Me

scottthongblog[at]yahoo[dot]com

Seeking truth, hating lies.

Oh my labels!

Free thinking, but not a Free Thinker.
A Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist.
Believing in a universal church, but not a Catholic.
Trying to be a saint in these latter days, but not a Latter Day Saint.
A witness for Jehovah, but not a Jehovah's Witness.
Sumitted to God, but not a Muslim.
Seeking knowledge, but not a Gnostic.
Rational in thinking, but not a Rationalist.
Upholding humanity, but not a Humanist.
A supporter of liberation, but not a Liberal.
A supporter of democracy, but not a Democrat.
Acknowledging the importance of social values, but not a Socialist.
Seeking and valuing truth, but not a Truther.